Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32726 (PNJ)

OUT PROFORM LOGISTICS PVT LTD v. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

CWP/16246/2026 · 2026-07-20

Rohit Kapoor, To Be Nominated

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-16246-2026 (O&M) 1 140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16246-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 OUT PRO-FORM LOGISTICS PVT LTD ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR ***** Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner has repeatedly applied for refund of the excess IGST recovered from it, yet the refund has not been allowed. Different reasons have been indicated from time to time for not accepting such claim. Grievance of the petitioner is that even when it has applied third time for refund, the application has been rejected without disclosing the precise reasons for any deficiency. 2. Taking note of such contention, we passed the following orders on 03.07.2026:- “Learned counsel for the revenue prays for and is allowed ten days’ time to obtain instructions and clarify the nature of deficiency on account of which petitioner’s application for refund is not being considered. List on 20.07.2026.” 3. Learned counsel for the State has obtained instructions, according to which the system operates online and the petitioner was required to furnish MOHIT GOYAL 2026.07.23 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16246-2026 (O&M) 2 copy of GSTR-2A of the relevant period, which was not uploaded. It is for this reason that the application has not been considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the previous rounds, when the petitioner did apply for such refund, no such shortcoming was indicated. 5. Be that as it may. 6. Once the authorities have indicated a shortcoming in the application of the petitioner, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to apply afresh, annexing the copy of GSTR-2A of the relevant period, so that its claim for refund could be considered. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we provide that if such an application is filed within two weeks from today along with the requisite records, the same shall be entertained and processed as per the timelines fixed in the statute. 7. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) 20.07.2026 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2026.07.23 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document